Practice question
An administrator who is also the parent of minor heirs seeks authority to mortgage estate land. No prescribed notice reaches the minors or their proper representatives, and the parent asserts that personal knowledge in the administrator's role automatically supplies every heir's notice. Which is correct?
- The distinct required notice cannot simply be replaced by that assertion; Pahamotang emphasizes compliance with Rule89's notice safeguards.
- An administrator's parenthood abolishes all notice requirements.
- All heirs automatically consent whenever the administrator applies.
- The buyer or lender may decide that notice is unnecessary.
- A court order always cures every proven absence of required notice.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_72-109_proceedings.html — Rules88–91 and adult-guardianship Rules92–97, subject to later law and AM03-02-05-SC for minors.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html — Pahamotang v PNB, GR156403, March31 2005, main decision (Rule89 notice).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.